Re: What did Indiana do for Archaeology?

Posted by Michaelson from eeespace208.utsi.edu (150.182.24.208) on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 at 1:54pm :

In Reply to: Re: What did Indiana do for Archaeology? posted by Chris from morgana.lamp.ac.uk (194.80.178.1) on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 at 1:38pm :

Now you're getting into the debate! (grins) That's exactly what the professionals say, and yet the field writers say "Indy ain't to blame....the science of the 1930's were", and yet I have a small volume sitting on my shelf at home, printed by the British Museum in 1929, that lists the do's and don'ts of archaeology in law as practiced by siging countries of that era, and everything that Indy did was exactly contrary to everything that the profession stated to be acceptable in terms of archaeology and gathering artifacts for museum study. Therefore, he was indeed, based on his OWN time line, a grave robber in the worse sense. But to take the other side, we also have WAY to many items of proof that the actual practice was exactly contrary to the legal and professionally accepted practices of the time. So there you have it.....the professional, non-field folks argue against, the field folks said it was SOP! The debate continues, though in a different era, and different political climate. Interesting topic you have to do there, Chris! Regards. Michaelson

: Michaelson, what's wrong with plundering a tomb without shame?

: You're right, thankfully Indiana Jones is not an accurate reflection of archaeological technique ( the realities a little grim: aerial photography, field walking, pollen analysis, does'nt quite have the ring of airship riding and desert trekking does it?) Still , as an adventure story, Indiana Jones can't be faulted.

Indygear Follow Ups: Re: What did Indiana do for Archaeology? - Anejo Joe 10:33pm 10/30/2001 Re: What did Indiana do for Archaeology? - Michaelson 3:46pm 10/31/2001 Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : Now you're getting into the debate! (grins) That's exactly what the professionals say, and yet the field writers say "Indy ain't to blame....the science of the 1930's were", and yet I have a small volume sitting on my shelf at home, printed by the British Museum in 1929, that lists the do's and don'ts of archaeology in law as practiced by siging countries of that era, and everything that Indy did was exactly contrary to everything that the profession stated to be acceptable in terms of archaeology and gathering artifacts for museum study. Therefore, he was indeed, based on his OWN time line, a grave robber in the worse sense. But to take the other side, we also have WAY to many items of proof that the actual practice was exactly contrary to the legal and professionally accepted practices of the time. So there you have it.....the professional, non-field folks argue against, the field folks said it was SOP! The debate continues, though in a different era, and different political climate. Interesting topic you have to do there, Chris! Regards. Michaelson : : : Michaelson, what's wrong with plundering a tomb without shame? : : You're right, thankfully Indiana Jones is not an accurate reflection of archaeological technique ( the realities a little grim: aerial photography, field walking, pollen analysis, does'nt quite have the ring of airship riding and desert trekking does it?) Still , as an adventure story, Indiana Jones can't be faulted. Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com